Pedants' Paradise, Spelling and Grammar Notes and Queries Options

[Swell Box]

I suppose us 'oldies' have an advantage in that we were taught to write letters before there were other means of long distance communication. Long distance telephone calls were very expensive, so it was not unusual to write to somebody we didn't know, and had never spoken to. Letters were therefore very formal, and grammar was usually the best that one could muster. Furthermore, mistakes could not be corrected, and there were no spelling checkers (other than a paper Dictionary), so it was not uncommon to draft important letters on scrap paper several times before writing them out properly on bonded paper.

....with a fountain pen, in the days when you still got a sheet of blotting paper at the front of your writing pad!

Oh yes! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

SB

[maggiemay]

Indeed ! : )

[Cyrilla]

No, another one here who uses 'fewer' for countables and 'less' for non-countable things.

Well said, Aquarelle. Very clear - if I may say so!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

[Tenor Viol]

I'm perfectly happy with "10 items or less". 10 items or fewer sounds fussy and unnatural. "Fewer than" 10 items similarly. Quite happy with "less than". And "less of" - so I might say to a class "Quit a lot of you chose answer A, less of you chose answer B, and even less chose answer C". Less just indicates a smaller number.

Though I find it hard to explain why I feel more comfortable with "fewer books" than "less books" when I'm happier with less in ALL other contexts.

When teaching English as a foreign language one uses "fewer" for countables and "less " for uncountables; The classic example is "fewer slices of bread" and "less bread".

So I think "10 items or less" has an unconcious reference to a "whole" - that is the whole amount of shopping being presented at the till. "Ten" is felt as a whole unit. You can have less than this unit just as you can have less bread. But strictly speaking the term used should be "fewer" because the items are individually countable.

This raises one of the problems of English in that it is a language which is instinctively created by the speaker as he/she speaks it. It does not obey anything like the set structures of, for example, French. It is a very flexible means of expression. Certain ambiguities depend on how the speaker is thinking and these are sometimes justifiable and somtimes not.

I don't agree with "less of you chose answer B" I think it should be "fewer" because less means a smaller quantity of a whole, not a smaller number. So then I suppose you could argue that you were thinking of the class as a whole unit. So you can probably say "Less of the class...." but if you are addressing a number of children and have that in mind you should really say "fewer."

Having just reread this it makes sense to me but I'm not sure if it will make sens to anyone else - which proves my point about English being spoken from the point of view of the speaker!

I'm happy with it!

I'm perfectly happy with "10 items or less". 10 items or fewer sounds fussy and unnatural. "Fewer than" 10 items similarly. Quite happy with "less than". And "less of" - so I might say to a class "Quit a lot of you chose answer A, less of you chose answer B, and even less chose answer C". Less just indicates a smaller number.

Though I find it hard to explain why I feel more comfortable with "fewer books" than "less books" when I'm happier with less in ALL other contexts.

When teaching English as a foreign language one uses "fewer" for countables and "less " for uncountables; The classic example is "fewer slices of bread" and "less bread".

So I think "10 items or less" has an unconcious reference to a "whole" - that is the whole amount of shopping being presented at the till. "Ten" is felt as a whole unit. You can have less than this unit just as you can have less bread. But strictly speaking the term used should be "fewer" because the items are individually countable.

This raises one of the problems of English in that it is a language which is instinctively created by the speaker as he/she speaks it. It does not obey anything like the set structures of, for example, French. It is a very flexible means of expression. Certain ambiguities depend on how the speaker is thinking and these are sometimes justifiable and somtimes not.

I don't agree with "less of you chose answer B" I think it should be "fewer" because less means a smaller quantity of a whole, not a smaller number. So then I suppose you could argue that you were thinking of the class as a whole unit. So you can probably say "Less of the class...." but if you are addressing a number of children and have that in mind you should really say "fewer."

Having just reread this it makes sense to me but I'm not sure if it will make sens to anyone else - which proves my point about English being spoken from the point of view of the speaker!

Perfect sense to me, and also indicates why your non-native speaking pupils will get it right: you teach them. (Erm, can you explain correct and incorrect use of 'due to'?!)

I agree with Aquarelle as to use of "less" and "fewer".

I think "due to" has now passed into English as an acceptable alternative to "owing to". In my youth, I remember a teacher telling me that "due to" was incorrect because due should be used like an adjective (e.g. one should give due importance to ...), and "owing to" was the correct phrase to explain why something had happened (e.g. owing to a heavy shower, the cricket match was suspended). However, the phrase "due to" is now found in the most erudite of publications, and is actually more common than "owing to". Language is a living thing, and at some point we have to accept that common usage is in the end correct usage.

I can remember that "due to" and "owing to" were issues at school. The use of "due to" was definitely frowned upon.

[Tenor Viol]

I agree with you about sentences including numbers, linda.ff. Because we are so used to talking about numbers in a maths context where "less than" is correct, we tend to apply this to any sentence including a number. Hence, I have no objection to "Ten items or less", which my mathematical brain converts to "less than or equal to ten items", and agree that "fewer" would sound pedantic here. I wouldn't use "less" in the context of "you" though; I'd have to say "fewer of you chose.."

For years I have struggled with the current usage of "I" and "me". I still hate book titles such as "The giraffe, the pelly and me", which teach children the incorrect use of "me" - maybe it's just that I had dinned into me as a child that "I" should always be used here. It's interesting that there is a hangover from this in many people's minds; they use "I" whenever it follows someone else, even when they should be using "me", e.g. Sarah gave her father and I a treat.

When did, "It is I" begin to sound pedantic? It's used quite happily in the King James version of the Bible, but I think few writers today would use it unless they wished to indicate that the person speaking was very upper class. "One" has gone the same way, yet it's actually a very useful construct, as one realises when learning French!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I hate to be overly pedantic (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif) but maths isn't English and the constructs and operators such as "less than"; "greater than"; "less than or equal to" used in maths (Boolean algebra etc) are completely different to the use of "less" or "fewer" in English.

Language does evolve: evolution isn't an excuse for sheer laziness or poor teaching, which is what I believe we are dealing with in the majority of cases here. I agree that sometimes word selection is based on euphony of the context because the correct construction can sound clumsy.

However, just because some people write "I could of done that...." doesn't make it right.

I agree with you about sentences including numbers, linda.ff. Because we are so used to talking about numbers in a maths context where "less than" is correct, we tend to apply this to any sentence including a number. Hence, I have no objection to "Ten items or less", which my mathematical brain converts to "less than or equal to ten items", and agree that "fewer" would sound pedantic here. I wouldn't use "less" in the context of "you" though; I'd have to say "fewer of you chose.."

For years I have struggled with the current usage of "I" and "me". I still hate book titles such as "The giraffe, the pelly and me", which teach children the incorrect use of "me" - maybe it's just that I had dinned into me as a child that "I" should always be used here. It's interesting that there is a hangover from this in many people's minds; they use "I" whenever it follows someone else, even when they should be using "me", e.g. Sarah gave her father and I a treat.

When did, "It is I" begin to sound pedantic? It's used quite happily in the King James version of the Bible, but I think few writers today would use it unless they wished to indicate that the person speaking was very upper class. "One" has gone the same way, yet it's actually a very useful construct, as one realises when learning French!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I do use "one" sometimes (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[maggiemay]

Another thing I have noticed recently (local press?) is the tendency to write headlines such as

'Man injured after car crash'.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

[Tenor Viol]

Language is a living thing, and at some point we have to accept that common usage is in the end correct usage.

Very often the question of correct/incorrect comes down to the written form, I find. It would be food to remind people once in a while that the written form of a language is only a mere approximation of the spoken language. As far as I'm concerned, if it sounds right, it is right.

I would disagree with both points of view.

The English language is misused by many sectors of society today. I cannot accept that 'doing it the wrong way' for long enough makes anything right. Innit! LOL (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Even BBC Presenters, who at one time provided a benchmark for the correct use of English, now seem to be sinking into the mire of dropped t's and h's, and I suspect have never been taught how to pronounce the word 'either' correctly.

There is also a big difference between spoken and written English, and equally, there are big differences between writing a formal letter, a memo, a book, a magazine article or a newspaper column.

Some of the worst examples of written English that I have seen were authored by individuals who wrote exactly as they spoke, and who could not understand that written and spoken English are different. I am sure that most of us are naturally tolerant of local phrases, (a popular phrase in this area, for example, is 'aam getting wrong' rather than 'I am being being told off'), but such phrases appear out of place in writing; except perhaps in Geordie novels. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I suppose us 'oldies' have an advantage in that we were taught to write letters before there were other means of long distance communication. Long distance telephone calls were very expensive, so it was not unusual to write to somebody we didn't know, and had never spoken to. Letters were therefore very formal, and grammar was usually the best that one could muster. Furthermore, mistakes could not be corrected, and there were no spelling checkers (other than a paper Dictionary), so it was not uncommon to draft important letters on scrap paper several times before writing them out properly on bonded paper.

Oddly enough, whilst I spend much of my time writing on the computer, I find that I am far more likely to miss mistakes on the computer screen than on the printed page. Consequently, I always proof read a printed copy before submitting any report or manuscript.

(Before anyone asks; no, I haven't proof read this post!) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

SB

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) I was taught from primary school onwards that there was a clear distinction between written and spoken English. So colloquialisms that were permitted in spoken language were not permmitted in written English, except as direct quotes.


My original reason for logging onto this thread today. I went to the passport office in Liverpool for an appointment today. I had the pleasure of a "greengrocer's apostrophe" on a board outside a deli:

" Fresh pasta's and salads" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yay.gif)

[BerkshireMum]

I agree with you about sentences including numbers, linda.ff. Because we are so used to talking about numbers in a maths context where "less than" is correct, we tend to apply this to any sentence including a number. Hence, I have no objection to "Ten items or less", which my mathematical brain converts to "less than or equal to ten items", and agree that "fewer" would sound pedantic here. I wouldn't use "less" in the context of "you" though; I'd have to say "fewer of you chose.."

For years I have struggled with the current usage of "I" and "me". I still hate book titles such as "The giraffe, the pelly and me", which teach children the incorrect use of "me" - maybe it's just that I had dinned into me as a child that "I" should always be used here. It's interesting that there is a hangover from this in many people's minds; they use "I" whenever it follows someone else, even when they should be using "me", e.g. Sarah gave her father and I a treat.

When did, "It is I" begin to sound pedantic? It's used quite happily in the King James version of the Bible, but I think few writers today would use it unless they wished to indicate that the person speaking was very upper class. "One" has gone the same way, yet it's actually a very useful construct, as one realises when learning French!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I hate to be overly pedantic (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif) but maths isn't English and the constructs and operators such as "less than"; "greater than"; "less than or equal to" used in maths (Boolean algebra etc) are completely different to the use of "less" or "fewer" in English.

Language does evolve: evolution isn't an excuse for sheer laziness or poor teaching, which is what I believe we are dealing with in the majority of cases here. I agree that sometimes word selection is based on euphony of the context because the correct construction can sound clumsy.

However, just because some people write "I could of done that...." doesn't make it right.

Of course, Maths isn't English, but I still think that's why many people are happy with "Ten items or less".

To continue the pedantry (IMG:style_emoticons/default/niceThread.gif) I was taught at school that one should say "different from" rather than "different to". However, Fowler considers that either form is acceptable, so I think the teacher was wrong here. It's too late for me, though - I am condemned to suffer the thought process : that's wrong, oh no it isn't, every time I see "different to". It just shows the power of the teacher! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

[Misterioso]

To continue the pedantry (IMG:style_emoticons/default/niceThread.gif) I was taught at school that one should say "different from" rather than "different to". However, Fowler considers that either form is acceptable, so I think the teacher was wrong here. It's too late for me, though - I am condemned to suffer the thought process : that's wrong, oh no it isn't, every time I see "different to".

Yes, either is acceptable. So I will be different from you and say "different to"!

[freda_bloogs]

Very often the question of correct/incorrect comes down to the written form, I find. It would be food to remind people once in a while that the written form of a language is only a mere approximation of the spoken language. As far as I'm concerned, if it sounds right, it is right.

I would disagree with both points of view.

The English language is misused by many sectors of society today. I cannot accept that 'doing it the wrong way' for long enough makes anything right. Innit! LOL (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

But, the thing is, once upon a time your right way was the wrong way.

Even BBC Presenters, who at one time provided a benchmark for the correct use of English, now seem to be sinking into the mire of dropped t's and h's, and I suspect have never been taught how to pronounce the word 'either' correctly.

How can you prescribe a pronunciation so generally. Do dialectical differences count for nothing?

There is also a big difference between spoken and written English, and equally, there are big differences between writing a formal letter, a memo, a book, a magazine article or a newspaper column.

Indeed there are. Sure, it serves a purpose and, in order for it to serve a purpose, there need to be common rules. My point, however, was that written language is a modern approximation of natural language.

Some of the worst examples of written English that I have seen were authored by individuals who wrote exactly as they spoke, and who could not understand that written and spoken English are different. I am sure that most of us are naturally tolerant of local phrases, (a popular phrase in this area, for example, is 'aam getting wrong' rather than 'I am being being told off'), but such phrases appear out of place in writing; except perhaps in Geordie novels. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

They do. To appear in place in writing the population would need to simply start saying it regularly. Suddenly it wouldn't appear strange.

To continue the pedantry (IMG:style_emoticons/default/niceThread.gif) I was taught at school that one should say "different from" rather than "different to". However, Fowler considers that either form is acceptable, so I think the teacher was wrong here. It's too late for me, though - I am condemned to suffer the thought process : that's wrong, oh no it isn't, every time I see "different to".

Yes, either is acceptable. So I will be different from you and say "different to"!

And Americans say "different than". Is this incorrect?

[Czerny]

On a restaurant menu: Spinage Curry. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

[Aquarelle]

I was also taught to use "different from" and to shun "different to". When I was at school using an Americanism was like waving red rag at a bull in the English department so "different than" probably earnt one a detention. Oh, and there I go using "one" - but maybe that is because I use "on" in *French so frequently.

Teaching English as a foreign language certainly makes one aware of some of the errors of native speakers. I stick hard and fast with "few" for countables and "less" for non-countables.

Talking of pronunciation, two delightful little girls from Scotland have joined our school. They are a blessing in my English lessons - only now half the primary school are speaking English with a Scottish accent and I can't understand a word they are saying! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[saxophile]

To continue the pedantry (IMG:style_emoticons/default/niceThread.gif) I was taught at school that one should say "different from" rather than "different to". However, Fowler considers that either form is acceptable, so I think the teacher was wrong here. It's too late for me, though - I am condemned to suffer the thought process : that's wrong, oh no it isn't, every time I see "different to". It just shows the power of the teacher! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

I also wince at "different to". One would never say "I must differ to you on that issue" - it would always be "differ from". Logically, I apply the same analysis to "My point of view on that issue is different to [ow, ow! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) ] yours". It feels completely wrong. The Latin root means "to bear apart" - as in diverge - and one would never say something was "divergent to" another thing....

On the "different than", my (rather old) Chambers dictionary has the intriguing comment "not now" next to this construction. It might therefore be one of those areas where older English - the kind that went across on the Mayflower - has been preserved in American usage but lost (at least for a while) here.

On a different topic, another pet peeve of mine is the inability to distinguish "dependant" (noun) from "dependent" (adjective). It happens to be a word I come across a lot in my line of work, and the number of times I see it spelled incorrectly is legion!

[Roseau]

I was also taught to use "different from" and to shun "different to". When I was at school using an Americanism was like waving red rag at a bull in the English department so "different than" probably earnt one a detention.

One of the English teachers I had used to get apopleptic if anyone said "train station" instead of "railway station". I used to tell my French students that "train station" was the American term but this year I had several native English speakers in my class and they all said "train station" so I can only assume that it has become accepted usage in England (and hope that my former teacher has retired (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) ).

The other thing that used to annoy him was pupils saying "can" instead of "may". Unsuspecting pupils from other classes would come in and say "Can I have a piece of chalk please for Mrs X" and he would say "Yes, you can" (emphasising the "can") and then carry on with whatever he was doing while they just stood there. Invariably the pupil would then ask the same question again still using "can" and get the same reply.

[maggiemay]

Ah yes - memories of a previous teaching job.

Children would ask 'can I go to the toilet?', and Miss L would reply 'I should hope you can at your age'.